Pruitthealth - Augusta Hills
2122 Cumming Road, Augusta, GA 30904 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 126 certified beds · (706) 737-8258 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 24% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 1.9% | 15.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.5% | 5.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.5% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.4% | 11.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.2% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 1.2% | 15.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.2% | 20.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.9% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.4% | 5.6% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.7% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.0% | 19.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 2.6% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.3% | 78.4% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.4% | 25.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.6% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 15% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.8%CMS range 7.8–17.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.71 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 126 beds and averages 86.5 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 40 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.30 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.86 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.42 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.65 on weekdays — 34% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-25 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, MDS Assessment Accuracy, the facility failed to complete an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment that indicated the use of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine for one of 15 residents (R) with orders for respiratory therapy. The deficient practice had the potential to place R2 at risk for respiratory complications, unmet needs, and a diminished quality of life.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled MDS Assessment Accuracy last revised 01/19/2026, revealed on page 1 under the Policy Statement section, It is the policy of this healthcare center that each Minimum Data Set (MDS) reflect the acuity and the medical status of each patient/resident in accordance with acceptable professional standards and practices. The assessment will be scheduled to accurately account for the acuity and complexity of the patient/resident. Each Assessment Reference Date (ARD) will be chosen to capture…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-25 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration: General Guidelines, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality during medication administration for one resident (R) R14. This deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk of receiving the wrong medications. The census was 85.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration: General Guidelines, reviewed 07/28/2025, revealed the Policy Statement stated, Medications are administered as prescribed, in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so. Personnel authorized to administer medications do so only after they have familiarized themselves with the medication. The Procedure section included, . 9. Only the licensed or legally authorized personnel that prepare a medication may administer it.Observation on 03/23/2026 at 1:47 PM revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) SS prepared medications for R14, gave the medications to LPN TT, and instructed LPN TT to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-25 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration, the facility failed to follow the physician's order for continuous oxygen administration for one of 15 resident (R) with orders for respiratory therapy. The deficient practice had the potential to place R2 at risk for respiratory complications, unmet needs, and a diminished quality of life.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration last reviewed 11/17/2025, revealed on page 1 under the Policy Statement section, It is the policy of PruittHealth Hospice and Healthcare Centers/Veteran Homes to provide oxygen safely and accurately to appropriate patients/residents. The Scope section revealed, This policy applies to Nurses and Respiratory Therapists. The Procedure section revealed, Oxygen will be administered by licensed personnel only when ordered by the physician, PA or NP. The physician order may be written PRN for comfort/dyspnea or may specify the number of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-27 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, staff interviews, and review of the policy titled, Self-Administration of Medications by Patients/Residents, the facility failed to assess and determine if one of 34 sampled residents (R) R732 was assessed to safely self-administer medications. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, Self-Administration of Medications by Patients/Residents, revised 1/28/2020, revealed the Policy Statement is that each patient/resident who desires self-administered medication is permitted to do so if the healthcare center's Licensed Nurse and Physician have determined that the practice would be safe for the patient/resident and other patients/residents of the healthcare center. Mediation self-administration also applies to family members who wish to administer medication. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R732 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including irritant contact dermatitis due to friction or contact with body fluids, and other…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-27 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, review of the facility policy titled, Daily Occupied Resident Room Cleaning, and review of the facility document Clean Air Filters, the facility failed to maintain clean 'Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner' (PTAC) units filters, and the facility also failed to ensure a clean home-like environment on one of three halls (100 Hall) for Rooms (Rm) (Rm115, Rm116, and Rm117). Findings Include: A review of the facility's document titled, Clean Air Filters, revealed the Instructions Number 2. Remove air filter and inspect for cleanliness. If filter is dirty either wash or replace depending on type of filter. If clean, reinstall filter. Number 4. Clean Grill on cover. Number 6. At minimum, air filters are to be replaced or thoroughly cleaned depending on type of filter every three months. Number 7. Clean evaporator coils if lint build-up is present. A review of the facility's policy titled, Daily Occupied Resident Room Cleaning, dated 10/2020, revealed under the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-27 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure activities of daily living (ADL) care was provided for one of 4 residents (R) (R44) related to showers and facial hair. This deficient practice had the potential to create skin care issues and lack of self-confidence. Findings include: Review of the EMR revealed R44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to unsteadiness on feet, muscle weakness, abnormal posture, dysphagia, heart disease, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and chronic atrial fibrillation. Review of annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed R44's had a BIMS of 10, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Section GG, functional status, revealed R44 required moderate to partial assistance with ADL care. Review of the care plan dated 2/10/2022 indicated that the resident prefers showers during the day and the goal listed as residence preferences will be honored through the next three months. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-27 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Weight Monitoring Program, the facility failed to conduct weekly weights as recommended by the Registered Dietician for one of four residents (R) R74. Specifically, R74 experienced a 13.4 % weight loss in a 30-day period. This deficient practice had the potential to cause significant decline in the physical and nutritional health for R74. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Weight Monitoring Program, revised 6/2/2023, documented the Procedure: Overview revealed patients/residents placed on the weight monitoring program will be weighed weekly. Procedure: Weight Frequency, number 2. New admissions will be weighed weekly times four weeks and/or until weight is stable. Procedure: Weight Frequency, number 4. patients/residents with a Significant Weight Loss (SWL) will be weighed weekly and reviewed for a minimum of four weeks until weight is stable or increasing. Procedure: Significant…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-06-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Cleaning Procedures: Kitchen Area, the facility failed to ensure the main kitchen was kept clean and sanitary. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure routine cleaning of the ceiling, stainless steel surfaces, and refrigerators were conducted consistently in the main kitchen. The deficient practice had the potential to affect 73 of 81 residents receiving an oral diet. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Cleaning Procedures: Kitchen area, dated September 2001, under Policy revealed: The policy applies to all dietary staff, housekeeping, and maintenance partners scheduled to assist in cleaning /sanitizing procedures. Walls, Ceilings, Floors, and Vents: Ceramic tile, stainless steel, and other surfaces-clean according to the manufacturer's instructions. Monthly: Wash the walls, ceilings, doors, and vents with hot water and detergent. Walk-in Refrigerator and Walk-in Freezer: Daily: Wash and sanitize as needed. Weekly: Sweep and mop floors of walk-in refrigerators and more…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-15 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's procedure titled, Eye Drops, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was 5% or less. A total of two errors with 31 opportunities were observed for one of three Residents (R) (R#28), for a total error rate of 6.45%. Findings include: Review of the undated facility's procedure titled, Eye Drops revealed that step six is to gently pull the lower lid down and away from the nose. A critical objective when administering eye drops is that the eye drop, but not the dropper, must make full contact when the resident closes the eyelid. Resident R#28 was admitted with diagnoses that included but were not limited to peripheral vascular disease, essential (primary) hypertension, unspecified glaucoma, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic nephropathy, and visual hallucinations. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for R#28 dated 3/23/2023 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating R#28 had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of medications…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PRUITTHEALTH — 95 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 94 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 94; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNITED HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA, INC. | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/27/2013 |
| PRUITT, NEIL | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/19/2007 |
| HERITAGE PROPERTIES OF AUGUSTA | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/24/2011 |
| J PAIGE PRUITT TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/14/2025 |
| LISA P HAMBY TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/14/2025 |
| NEIL L PRUITT JR TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/22/2021 |
| PRUITT PROPERTIES INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/27/2013 |
| UNITED HEALTH SERVICES INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/27/2013 |
| PRUITT, NANCY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 11/27/2013 |
| SMALL, PHILIP | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 01/03/2011 |
| SLEDGE PITTARD, TIFFANY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/11/2023 |
| THOMAS, LUTHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/18/2025 |
| PRUITTHEALTH CONSULTING SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/26/2013 |
| PRUITTHEALTH INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
9 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 77% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $2.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in GA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Georgia Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 115672. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-25, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.